There was a good reason for this.
When the Constitution was ratified, several states said that their ratifications were contingent upon a bill of rights being inserted into the new Constitution as amendments. Madison pointed out that ratification was an up-or-down act not dependent upon any conditions, but it was clear that a bill of rights was going to be necessary. Elected as first Speaker of the House, Madison was a bit slow in generating amendments, but when two states sent petitions to Congress for a “general” Amendments Convention, Madison put quill pen to hemp paper and generated 12 proposed amendments, which were slam-dunked through Congress. Ten of those 12 were slam-dunked through the ratification process and became our Bill of Rights.
Two of those amendment proposals sat out there without sufficient ratifications by the states to get into the Constitution.
In 1983, Gregory Watson, a legislative assistant to a Texas state senator, did some research into what amendments might be out there waiting for ratification, when he happened on Madison’s 12th proposal, known as the Salary Grab Amendment. Resigning from his job, he went around the country holding seminars for state legislators about this particular amendment. As a result, ratifications began trickling into the Archivist’s office.
In 1992, the 38th ratification hit the Archivist’s office, and the Archivist sent a memo to Congress that their power had just been radically curtailed. Unfortunately, the Archivist had failed to give Congress a heads-up as ratifications began to reach the critical number, and as a result Congress was blind-sided by the 38th ratification.
Congressional leadership was outraged and sent the Archivist a memo challenging the earliest ratifications as “stale” and stating that those states needed to ratify the amendment all over. The reasoning was that since 1918 Congress had placed seven year windows on ratifications, and 203 year old ratifications could not be valid.
The Archivist cited every Supreme Court decision on the amendatory process in a masterly memo, and Congress found itself in the position of having to sue in federal court to throw the 27th Amendment out of the Constitution. The year 1992 was an election year with a strong anti-incumbent tide flowing, and Congress decided that discretion was the better part of valor. There would be no lawsuit. Rather than fight in court, Congress accepted the 27th Amendment into the Constitution with a lot of grumbling and no enthusiasm.
Fascinating. Your post illustrates the power v. power aspect of our government. Yes, there is supreme constitutional law, but if there is no organized interest, hopefully with judicial standing, to defend and demand implementation of each and every clause, . . . we know what happens.